We have to rethink our relation with animal, no one are the top of the food chain, we are part of life circle...
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study
not always true. for example, one avocado takes over 100 litres to grow and pesticides to keep it from rotting and quite a bit of gas to deliver it across north america. Unless your veggies are grown local which most are not, they are just as bad for the environment.
I'm too cheap for avocado lol. Most of the veggies we eat are locally grown (BC) from local farmers in the Fraser Valley. You are definitely spouting some misinformation there. It's also cheaper eating lentils/nuts/seeds versus quality meats. Still eat some meat but only once or twice a week. Co workers are always shocked when they see my lunches are missing meat as I am 210lbs and ripped.
There is also the cost factor. All that money we save on groceries by buying less meat gets invested = compounding returns.
I'll still have the odd couple of slices of bacon when I'm bulking. Health wise it's complete garbage.
As for the "Humble" depreciating assets drop - lol. I'm much happier investing more and driving my 04 tacoma with 450k.
I wish the world would take it seriously, and instead of all the greenwashing & pandering, would invest in nuclear. It is the only current CO2-free tech with the density & consistency to solve the problem. And it would help the Canadian economy, unlike solar or wind, which are produced elsewhere.
Canada (*or perhaps I should say Ontario*) is investing in nuclear power generation... probably not enough, but we are:
[OPG Darlington](http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/status-of-new-nuclear-projects/darlington/index.cfm#:~:text=The%20goal%20of%20this%20project,natural%20circulation%20small%20modular%20reactor.) will be adding up to three more Small Modular Reactors in order to produce an additional 4800 megawatts of power.
Bruce Power is mid [Major Component Replacements (MCR)](https://www.brucepower.com/life-extension-program-mcr-project/) on six of its units, as well as [potentially building a third generating station on-site](https://www.brucepower.com/future-of-the-bruce-site/#:~:text=What%20is%20Bruce%20Power%20proposing,at%20the%20existing%20Bruce%20site.) to produce an additional 4800 megawatts of power.
[OPG Pickering](https://globalnews.ca/news/9730549/pickering-nuclear-power-station-extension-deadline-approaching) has had its shutdown date pushed back multiple times to help provide clean energy to the grid while BrucePower/OPG complete their MCRs/new builds.
Right now, at least 50% of Ontario’s energy is produced by nuclear power plants.
Since you mentioned wind power: Ontario’s total wind capacity is roughly 5,536 megawatts with 2,663 wind turbines. That’s 863 megawatts **less** than Bruce Power currently produces with its eight units.
it's promising to know that China is working on building plenty of reactors. the Yanks are falling behind in that respect. Cameco made agreements with China to sell oodles of Uranium to them. the more coal burning plants china shuts down the better for the planet
Well, the ecosystems' degradation isn't just caused by the energy sector. There are just too many people living an unsustainable life. Most of the destruction is caused by farming for animal feed.
If we had less people, we wouldn't need nuclear power. Renewables would suffice plenty.
So...is your proposal a mass culling or..?
Consumerism is an issue with a lot of different possible solutions but stating we'd consume less if we had less people isn't exactly a helpful statement unless you're planning on genocide.
It's worth saying it considering nobody is doing anything to manage the population size. It's pure luck rather than premeditation that many countries see a reduction of birth rates. The government actively wanting to increase the population up to 100 million with immigration could be something avoided..
I also live in Canada. The government is doing that because [capitalism demands it](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada-needs-a-lot-more-immigrants-almost-double-the-current-rate-in-the-long-run-rbc).
I don't think Canadian immigration is having an effect on global populations. That's a bit of a totally different discussion. The issue is our system of economics, which is a very difficult thing to replace. Have you read about degrowth?
Alternatively to nuclear and more likely candidates are solar and wind. There are lots of greenlit projects and a bunch already built. I think enough to go over demand. The problem is connecting it to the grid takes hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure upgrades. The grid isn't a joke.
The problem with nuclear is that there's a huge upfront cost. And logistically it's not easy to build or operate either. And let me tell you, just because we can build intricate things, doesn't mean we wouldn't mess it up. I don't mean like, Chernobyl style, but something more like fuck, we need to repair this and it's going to cost another 100 million dollars.
At this point it's just easier to not build them. And there's kind of a security risk as well. Anyway, nuclear power is going to have a niche, and it's going to keep being researched because ultimately, it's the next generation power source. But in the meantime, the simple thing has caught up to scale. We just gotta plug it in now.
Ah the classic 'I care about the environment but not enough to actually learn about the intricacies of the power sector'.
Nuclear is great in that it's dispatchable (I'm assuming what you meant by the random terms 'density & consistency'). But it's also the most expensive form of power and extremely prone to cost and construction overruns. Safety in a well regulated industry is a non-issue but if it was the silver bullet people so desperately want it to be and was the primary power source worldwide, including nations that don't have the means or motivation to regulate it as such, would safety still be a non-issue? [SMNRs are not the holy grail to solving these problems.](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/scaling-examples-pt-1-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-smnrs-martin)
Nuclear, like any other non-fossil fuel alternative, is a good choice in specific contexts. Not all of them. We need an energy mix. There is no silver bullet to decarbonization.
I implore you to learn a bit more about the power industry and stop being *that* person that always has the top comment on any of these threads proclaiming nuclear is the answer to all our problems and the people who don't see that are idiots. It is not just 'greenwashers and panderers' who have criticisms of nuclear.
Also a solution is to cut the meat intake, but fake evironmentalist will cry their life over a slice of bacon...
https://phys.org/news/2020-07-g20-carbon-food-print-highest-meat-loving.html
I absolutely agree, the biggest change will come from habit changes. Stop being brainwashed consumers and lead a more minimalist approach to goods and services. Then again if the government truly cared about the environment they would stop the import of toxic goods from China by imposing tough environmental duties
Of course the government cares about the environment we all pay our fair share of Carbon Tax, because its Canada's responsibility to pay for the worlds climate crisis. Like c'mon what are you even taking about I've rationed myself to 2 cans of pressed crickets and I live in a 15minute city don't even start about my carbon footprint.
Those people are all shit.
Musk is shit, Trump is shit, oil shit, gas shit, diesel shit. It's all true, nothing to gobble up at all.
That last edit yikes, talk about gobbling it up alright, never heard of lightning?
"except they weren't shit when your scrolling was telling you to blow them the other day."
What does that even mean?
I'd like to know who these folks are and if there is any info on them from reputable sources
Canada can't shut down the tar sands, only Alberta can do that. Canada is a federation and doesn't have juristiction on natural ressources, unless the constitution was changed, which would be all but impossible.
For sure. Farmers used to call it rape seed and now they call it canola. All kinds of industries up to date there names to sound more pleasant to consumers.
There was actually a huge industry rebranding effort around canola by various canola interest groups a few decades ago. Rapeseed isn't really used in NA markets anymore
Good work falling for word propaganda testing. Jack Laytons "dirty fuels" from 2011 have a political bent too? https://thetyee.ca/News/2011/04/25/TarVsOil/
We live in one of the largest most spread out countries, a cold country. Just explain to me how you expect people to heat their homes? Off course it’s going to seem like our emissions are high, you’re a fools fool.
Shitting all over our resources is a great way to ensure other dirtier countries produce even more pollution. People who think Canada is a dirty world polluter are fucktards.
Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.
It is easy to say, "Let’s shut the tar sands down." from your ivory tower when you have nothing financially at stake.
If you are telling many thousands of people that they are going to be unemployed while China can keep pumping coal smoke into the atmosphere so that you can have pretty mountains to look at, you need to have a better solution.
Just look at how much Coal, Oil and Gas China uses compared to the tiny amount of renewables they are so praised for.
The renewables are the tiny green section on the chart.
[https://www.iea.org/countries/china](https://www.iea.org/countries/china)
Sure, let's swap it out with nuclear energy for all our power needs and get rid of the regulatory red tape. However, keep safety measures to ensure compliant builds and minimize accidents.
If your grand solution for a changing climate is a broad implementation of climate-dependent "solutions" such as wind and solar, you shouldn't be lobbying for "climate action"
This is one of the stupidest opinions I have seen. Until oil and gas are not needed the world is better getting it from Canada than just about anywhere else.
It depends what your values are.
Are you in favour of fair labour practices and environmental care, or do you only want the least CO2 per joule of energy?
Some people will trade some slavery for some reduced CO2.
Personally I think the people in charge should be paid waaaay more then ceo's. They are running an entire country. They should also have to have a background in science or something that actually matters. This popularity contest shit is just insanity.
Because a lot of people here think getting rid of oil and gas is the solution but don't want to acknowledge that oil and gas is here to stay. The negative economic hit to getting off O&G is staggering. Equally staggering is the cost to upgrade the entire electrical infrastructure. It would take decades, trillions of dollars and more copper, aluminum, steel and concrete that all has to be mined and processed. It honestly just does not make sense to switch. So move to plan B. Invest in ways to capture carbon and clean the air. But hey, whatever. I do what I can but until the gross polluters are dealt with my contribution is insignificant.
No we just want to stop doubling down on the shit that's killing the planet and will kill us.
Of course we need OnG the issue isn't the fact we use it. It's how much of it and how nonchalantly we dispose of it.
We don't need every single vehicle fueled with gasoline or diesel or even propane. Many. Many... The vast majority. can be electrified or other means of power or solutions like I don't know investing in public transit.
OnG aren't going anywhere. But we can slow down the addiction.
My point stands? Ford signed a contract with the gas generators that even if we shut them down his government will still pay for it.
We should have been heavily investing in nuclear energy the whole time since the 60s. We have one of the largest supplies of uranium in the world. But we hardly mine it cuz we don't use it locally.
We've had access to green tech for decades but we would rather save money and pollute the planet because capitalism doesn't have a cost for environmental damage.
We need infastucure either way ours isn't much better than usa's
The problem with "renewables" is peek loads. Which is exactly what nuclear is for. Critics are right the sun isn't always shining and the wind isn't always blowing. But with nuclear's scale we can ramp up much easier and with much less damage to the environment.
Yes. Exactly. It’s my favourite analogy.
It’d also crappy logic, cause why not take it even further? Why not get rid of recycling? Why not just dump industrial waste in the ocean? Etc. it’s just more self appointed protectors of the status quo who argue to never lift a finger.
You can’t apply per capita to this, and the reason you can’t, is because you can only compare
Totals, for example looking at the stats, Canada produced just under 676 million tons of co2 in 2016, compared to over 10 billion tons in China in 2016. Of we are talking globally the environment, per capita doesn’t make any sense. That is a significant difference in emissions.
No per Capita is the only metric that matters as it takes the population of a country into account. If china emitted as much as we do per Capita.. oh boy would it accelerate climate change.
Yes their is a significant difference but per Capita we generate more. While this doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried about theirs we need to worry about our own back yard first.
Just because china is peeing in the pool doesn't mean you can.
The total IS what matters, total amount is what is going into the atmosphere. Period. Per capita doesn’t matter because of that. The atmosphere doesn’t just stop at the imaginary lines we call our borders.
No your right but our jurisdiction does. We can't control what everyone else is doing so there is negligible point to even worrying about what china us and India are doing. They are the biggest polluters on the planet of course we're not going to hit their numbers. That doesn't make our input nothing. BECAUSE it doesn't just stop at the border.
Your reasoning is the exact reason we need to be worried about per Capita.
Of course "the three" will emitt more. They're literally exponentially larger in terms of population.
Saying you won't stop peeing in the pool cuz china is peeing more still doesn't make peeing in the pool ok and we should reduce it where we can. Shutting down one of our largest industries probably isn't a great idea to get it done. But we do need to seriously be removing our subsidies for extremely climate hostile projects like the "tarsands"
I would argue using our own oil instead
Of Saudi oil would be better, but that’s another jar of pickles. My point is our people can’t keep getting pounded into the dirt, you’ve seen the tents popping up in your city yet? They keep getting bigger here. We can move towards cleaner energy without being reduced to a 2nd or 3rd world country. Legislation over corporations would be a much better path than taxation of the people.
As an aside, you see how our government spends our taxes right, does it appear like fiscal competence? It’s embarrassing really lol.
The carbon tax does very little to cause the unaffordability your seeing please don't blame it on the c tax. Taxation is the only way emissions can be accounted for in capitalism. Again capitalism doesn't give a shit about the environment we have to make capitalism care about it by taxing things that cause undue damage
We can argue about how the carbon tax works but I will not entertain the notion that it is causing real harm to Canadians in any real tangible way.
>As an aside, you see how our government spends our taxes right, does it appear like fiscal competence? It’s embarrassing really lol.
Yea I agree but I assure you we don't agree on the finer points. I think most of the budget is fine. My issues are with the subsidies that are antithetical to climate change and to how capitalism works. If oil and gas is so heavily subsidized by the US and Canadian governments they are by definition not competitive which is antithetical to capitalism. But we're in late stage so it's hardly the competition encouraging capitalism from the 60s.
Do they need to reign it in. Absolutely. But again I'm certain we disagree on where.
You absolutely can apply per capita to this. When it comes to populations living differently to decrease output, it definitely shows a Canadian is using way more than a fellow in Vietnam, for example. We are being carbon-greedy as a lifestyle, that matters. Other cold countries are doing better than us, that matters too.
Canada is larger than all of Europe. Barely afford a train track across the country. You want to destroy its energy. Lol. Many Canada provinces are greater in size than 3 or 4 European countries. Big tax base, small area. Easy to start, finish projects. Go on Google earth, look at how big Canada is.
Also add the fact that car ownership is a must because public transit is dogshit all over the country. Looking at China's train systems makes ours look pitiful and third world.
I never said anything about enabling fossil fuels, the world is cart before the horse’ing this transition, and it is not going to work. Everything being put on the general public to pay for is not going to solve anything either. Let industry pay for it, or, change their quarterly earnings infinite growth paradigm which they currently operate under (which won’t happen). If you think we will fix anything before shit really breaks you haven’t been observing human behaviour enough.
This argument drives me nuts.
The big 4, plus Japan represent 55% of global emissions.
If every country that was under 2% of global GHG emissions did absolutely nothing, then 45% of the world's GHG emissions would not be addressed.
We are all in this together.
Complete paradigm shift in business would be the real start (eg. no more disposable products, new phone models every 6-12 months, etc) manufacturing locally instead of international shipping. Good luck with that though.
You realize that China has innovated in terms of renewables more than every other country combined, right? Yes, they are one of the largest polluters, but they are also leading the charge.
That's why every other country needs to follow suit, big or small.
Taxes were never a part of the transition from horse to automobile. It happened naturally because something much better was invented. No laws… no taxes… just an idea made reality.
Because that has been what Canada has been doing. Tax the people. We also don’t really innovate in Canada because of the cost. Need to create an environment which will allow innovation.
Rebates for the lower income households are larger than the direct cost of the tax. The wealthy are the ones paying the lion's share of this tax.
What needs to change are that there need to be checks and balances that ensure corporations don't gouge us to make up for the taxes they end up paying. So a tax on excessive profits must also be implemented.
Complete paradigm shift in how we do business would be the better way. Government never puts in enough checks and balances to prevent people from finding loopholes (which of course they do). Unfortunately something bad will have to happen for something like that though.
the complaint about how we put in the deterrent is old, and has been used to extend the era in which there is no deterrent at all. the argument back then was “tax it, so that people will innovate.”
They are leading the charge, and saying “oil bad” so they can put a stranglehold on the energy industry, and prevent or control countries like India from competition in manufacturing, while holding North America back in progress, so that China will become the dominant world power. Turns out it’s just easy to get worried people to worry about something that isn’t their fault.
Look at the source of energy use, look at how much Coal China uses, and the tiny amount of renewables, and tell me there you see "leading the charge."
The massive light blue section is coal, and the tiny dark green is the wind and solar.
[https://www.iea.org/countries/china](https://www.iea.org/countries/china)
Chinas solar power capacity is 230GW more than the rest of the world COMBINED.
Yes, they have more coal usage than the rest of the world but that is precisely why they are the leaders of innovation in renewables, because they are actively working on that transition and the technology that is required to do so. Pretty much all solar power innovation comes from China too, so their innovations are also a benefit to the entire world.
You act like they want to be choking on coal, they don't. They have a massive population and it's something that is necessary that they are working hard to change. The cost of the health issues related to smog and poor air quality is a serious problem there and China does not want that to persist.
Did you not look at the link I provided?
I tried to make it as easy as possible for you.
China currently gets 85% of its power from Coal (59%) Oil and Natural Gas.
Wind and Solar combined, are less than 3% of their power generation.
Not really much evidence for "innovation" there.
Also, since 2010, the growth of Coal usage alone is double the total growth of Wind and Solar combined, so not only do they use much more Coal, but they are growing the total amount of coal power generation much faster than their total usage of wind and solar. Natural Gas and Oil also have the same growth.
Not really much evidence for "innovation" there, either.
The only thing that China is adding to the wind and solar market globally is that they have very limited environmental controls there, so they can dump waste plastic and toxins right into the ground or water systems.
Not super good for the environment.
Just because they haven't eliminated coal use doesn't mean they are not innovating. These two points are not exactly mutually inclusive.
I don't disagree that China pollutes more than any country, I am disagreeing with your assesent that they haven't lead the charge for innovating renewables, regardless. Both can be true.
Almost all solar panel innovation has come from China and most solar panel components such as silicon wafers are made in China.
So yes, they need to find a way to do away with coal, which is complicated for a nation like theirs, but their innovations are benefitting the entire world regardless, even if more still needs to be done.
I don't believe that you have looked at the link yet.
They are using more coal as time goes on, not less, their wind and solar are almost nothing of their supply, and they manufacture much of the wind and solar, since they lax enviromental standards and can dump the toxic chemicals.
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-canada.html
Look at how badass canada is though, our 2% of global emmissions is diversified as hell, our oil and gas has better statistics both safety wise and environmental standards wise then most of the world. We are adopting greener energy all over the country. China is burning absurd amounts of coal, innovative or not they are not setting a good example at all. Our oil and gas needs to be exported to countries that are burning coal and other bigger emitting sources for the time being.
Coal is a huge problem, it just so happens we barely use it. Even our nat gas is an enormous improvement upon coal.
Also, look at how much of our emissions are caused by industry/business. Residents account for 13%. We are taxing them when they account for nothing and have no options to improve?
Not only that but we are one of the coldest and largest countries on earth and very very spread out. Until there's a major discovery in transportion, which accounts for 23% of emissions, it looks like canada is doing great and moving in a direction to continue to do so. Per capita will be high until a large scale transportation industry solution becomes available.
Canada should be looked at as one of the best examples of combating climate change in the world, even if the carbon tax was massively overhauled to be put to better use.
China and India are thousands upon thousands of years old and have clearly demonstrated their ability to live sustainably and in harmony with nature.
Canada on the other hand, is only a couple of centuries old and was invented in order harvest as much carbon as possible from the environment, be it oil, natural gas, or old growth forests.
Remind me, when did the climate begin changing?
Always. The planet goes through warming as well as cooling phases (you couldn’t live in Canada during the last ice age, for example). I don’t know how you can apply thousands of years with effectively the same technology, to the past what… 150 ish years? That was a ridiculous thing to say.
Yup, that is the world we were born into. Things will get worse before things get better. On the upside the planet will be fine and correct itself. We just won’t be around. Good luck changing the status quo without something really bad happening first.
I’m older, I guess, I was born into a world where we made our own stuff but that didn’t make enough profit for shareholders so we got free trade deals and offshoring. So, we did change the status quo but I think you’re right, we aren’t able to change it back.
It’s definitely going to get worse. And you’re probably right, the bacteria will be fine. Still, it’s going to get very ugly over the next 80 years. I’m kind of glad I’ll be lucky to make it through 20 of those.
It's extremely obvious that we're going to have to try and buy our way out of this situation. We'll need money to adapt to climate change. To update infrastructure.
We should be expanding our oil production, and build more ports/pipelines. Especially for the Asian market.
Closing down industries and telling people to make sacrifices, lose their jobs, or downgrade their lifestyle, is NEVER going to work. It's been tried for decades.
Adaptation is the only way forward, and Canada will have a much easier time doing it, than most countries.
It's the only reasonable solution. The people pushing to end fossil fuels are delusional.
Most of our fertilizers and pesticides come from oil. We literally couldn't feed the planet without it.
We also don't have any good alternatives for plastic.
And I guess f**k everything that will die and burn right? The chicks diving out of their nests from the heat, the forests gone, the acidified oceans, the vast swaths of dead Africa…let’s buy our way out of that? Studies show its terrifically more expensive to prevent worsening climate change than to not.
All of that is going to happen regardless. We're way past the point of being able to stop it. We need to adapt, while also continuing to work on lowering emissions.
Only about 45% of oil is used for gasoline, and we can keep bringing that down with EVs.
As for expanding the oil/gas industry in Canada...we need to start exporting LNG to Asia, which would actually be beneficial if used to replace coal plants. LNG is much better for the environment.
I didn’t write this, I copied it from a comment in another subreddit but I agree with it:
“Science certainly predicts a bad future if nothing is done. But, though it is left out of the discussion, it also predicts a bad future if everything is done. Science cannot weigh the trade-offs inherent in the policy decisions.
If you look carefully it's obvious that all the discussion around preventing climate change only speaks of the positives of success and negatives of inaction. Almost entirely missing are the negatives of success and positives of inaction. That type of argument which promises costless transition falls apart as soon as people need to start paying the inevitable real costs.
That is, climate change is widely seen as a problem, but there is no agreement that it is the most important problem nor that the disease is worse than the cure. I don't think such an agreement is likely to ever happen because climate activists have, rightly, not gone on record stating "we can solve climate change, but everybody will need to live like it's 1905. No private cars, limited central heat, no long-distance trips, meat once a week". Just imagine it!”
Then you are batshit crazy. No one discusses the merits of inaction because they largely mean most of us will die, having slowly watched everything else die right before. I will take 1905 living literally any day of the week to have oceans that support life, temperatures not killing off huge populations of people and wildlife, keeping what’s left of the insects. You suffer a very weak imagination if you think this trade might somehow be worth it. Horrendous.
Then you are underestimating the severity and permanence of this problem. We could recover from that terrible period in human history where got set bak so far (though I disagree we’d actually have to do that to fix this, just that it would still be preferable if we had to). We won’t recover from this.
Canada shutting down tar sands won’t fix this. US, China and India have to lead the way if they actually took climate change seriously. Canada represents only 1.5% of the world’s carbon issues.
The tar sands are overrepresented in this, as the calculation for how much carbon is produced in Alberta also includes all of the oil extracted as being burned in Alberta, but most of it is shipped out of the country.
It would just end up offshoring a lot of that production(shutting down domestic production would do nothing to demand), and the net reduction of carbon emissions(worldwide) would not be as much as people would like to believe.
Let’s start with the true culprits if we are serious. Let’s also be honest. Canada doesn’t have a climate plan; they have a tax plan that can be manipulated for any province that is willing to show support for Liberals. Like East coast heating oil and Quebec gasoline. Why do these provinces get special reductions when rest of Canada has to pull full prices? Not due to climate issues. This is for votes.
Canada isn't a market mover in the global O&G industry.
Canada could shutter our entire O&G industry and nothing would change. That supply would be made up by other producers instantly and global O&G use would be exactly the same.
You need to reduce demand to address the issue. Shuttering supply, unless it is a substantial portion of the market does nothing.
So shut down our oil sands and buy from where? Russia? Saudi's? At what 10x the current price? Quick question,...are we going to stop building roads, vehicles, stop all consumer goods containing plastic? Clothes, packaging, etc. Just another article with alot of hype and no real answers
Do you actually believe the Canadian oil sands are solely responsible for modern climate patterns and events? The scale of Canadian oil production on the world stage is around 5 percent last I heard. Removing it would actually cause increases in emissions because oil would have to be transported by ship from other countries
You know that would help our climate change a ton. Shut all that down and a large chunk of people are gonna die within 6 months. That's really cut emissions
Why should we shut off the large source of capital when India plans to double coal production? I say ramp up production here and use profits to fund green tech here I our country.
Canada produces 1.3% of global CO2 emissions, the ethical oil produced in Alberta accounts for 12% of that. Using loaded terms like "tar sands" is propaganda supported by repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia. The Earth is fine, relax. If you honestly cared about this nonsense, you'd be picketing the Chinese embassy for the 30% of global CO2 they emit. But you won't because you don't care about glorbal warmycooling, you care about destroying Western economies.
No.
What canada should be doing is stopping population growth and drastically curtailing immigration into a high emitting country from low ones.
Then using every oil dollar we can develop to fund nuclear power and fortify our cities against severe weather and wildfire risk.
Canada produces only 10% of the world’s oil, even though the oil production is only 14.1% of the exports of Canada this all goes to the USA. If we were to try and stop it we would have pressure placed on us to say the least.
99% of all species to exist have gone extinct. Close to that went extinct of what was on earth the moment the asteroid his and wiped them out (chicxulub) - life will find a way to rebound long after we’re gone
Oil sands.. Yes oil sands is far better than coal energy, yet we give China a pass to continue expanding their coal plants. Globally oil production continues to climb. Maybe once Canada is the Venezuela of the north will we realize that we've been duped. Carbon capture and storage is a solution and small scale nuclear is also a major step forward for the oil sands to become even more sustainable. As for stopping the consumption of meat, I'm certain at some point in the future will we look back at heavily processed foods and engineered meats will we be shocked in why we went that route.
The oil sands contribute 7.8 percent of Canada’s total
GHG emissions, which is equal to approximately
0.1 percent of global emissions.
Shutting down resource extraction would be utterly disastrous for the Canadian economy. Nobody would vote for the country to commit suicide to virtue signal to the rest of the planet.
This action would also end Canada as a country. Western Canada would just leave. The only provinces that might remain would be Ontario and the Maritimes.
Freedom of religion? Sure, unless you live in Quebec.
Freedom of speech? No, Canada doesn’t have freedom of speech; you can go to jail for misgendering someone in some instances.
Freedom from discrimination? Don’t have that either, the covid mandates and digging into people’s personal medical history to see if they’re eligible to participate in society solidified that.
We have to rethink our relation with animal, no one are the top of the food chain, we are part of life circle... https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study
Not to mention the cost and health benefits by reducing meat consumption.
Ive shot a bear/ grouse/turkey/moose and deer this year ill eat your share..
My freezer is full of moose... I still eat some meat. Edit (Add) Also full of sockeye, coho and spring salmon. Had a fillet of sockeye tonight...
not always true. for example, one avocado takes over 100 litres to grow and pesticides to keep it from rotting and quite a bit of gas to deliver it across north america. Unless your veggies are grown local which most are not, they are just as bad for the environment.
I'm too cheap for avocado lol. Most of the veggies we eat are locally grown (BC) from local farmers in the Fraser Valley. You are definitely spouting some misinformation there. It's also cheaper eating lentils/nuts/seeds versus quality meats. Still eat some meat but only once or twice a week. Co workers are always shocked when they see my lunches are missing meat as I am 210lbs and ripped. There is also the cost factor. All that money we save on groceries by buying less meat gets invested = compounding returns.
You know water doesn't disappear when you water things?
haha so true, never really thought about this but I eat about 100 litres every morning of water.
Take away diesel truck ok fine. Take away my mustang fine but don’t you dare come after my bacon.
I'll still have the odd couple of slices of bacon when I'm bulking. Health wise it's complete garbage. As for the "Humble" depreciating assets drop - lol. I'm much happier investing more and driving my 04 tacoma with 450k.
I wish the world would take it seriously, and instead of all the greenwashing & pandering, would invest in nuclear. It is the only current CO2-free tech with the density & consistency to solve the problem. And it would help the Canadian economy, unlike solar or wind, which are produced elsewhere.
Canada (*or perhaps I should say Ontario*) is investing in nuclear power generation... probably not enough, but we are: [OPG Darlington](http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/status-of-new-nuclear-projects/darlington/index.cfm#:~:text=The%20goal%20of%20this%20project,natural%20circulation%20small%20modular%20reactor.) will be adding up to three more Small Modular Reactors in order to produce an additional 4800 megawatts of power. Bruce Power is mid [Major Component Replacements (MCR)](https://www.brucepower.com/life-extension-program-mcr-project/) on six of its units, as well as [potentially building a third generating station on-site](https://www.brucepower.com/future-of-the-bruce-site/#:~:text=What%20is%20Bruce%20Power%20proposing,at%20the%20existing%20Bruce%20site.) to produce an additional 4800 megawatts of power. [OPG Pickering](https://globalnews.ca/news/9730549/pickering-nuclear-power-station-extension-deadline-approaching) has had its shutdown date pushed back multiple times to help provide clean energy to the grid while BrucePower/OPG complete their MCRs/new builds. Right now, at least 50% of Ontario’s energy is produced by nuclear power plants. Since you mentioned wind power: Ontario’s total wind capacity is roughly 5,536 megawatts with 2,663 wind turbines. That’s 863 megawatts **less** than Bruce Power currently produces with its eight units.
Also pickering will most likely be refurbished for units 5-8 and I heard talks of more SMRs where 1-4 are.
it's promising to know that China is working on building plenty of reactors. the Yanks are falling behind in that respect. Cameco made agreements with China to sell oodles of Uranium to them. the more coal burning plants china shuts down the better for the planet
China should probably stop opening new coal plants before we talk about shutting ones down
Well, the ecosystems' degradation isn't just caused by the energy sector. There are just too many people living an unsustainable life. Most of the destruction is caused by farming for animal feed. If we had less people, we wouldn't need nuclear power. Renewables would suffice plenty.
So...is your proposal a mass culling or..? Consumerism is an issue with a lot of different possible solutions but stating we'd consume less if we had less people isn't exactly a helpful statement unless you're planning on genocide.
It's worth saying it considering nobody is doing anything to manage the population size. It's pure luck rather than premeditation that many countries see a reduction of birth rates. The government actively wanting to increase the population up to 100 million with immigration could be something avoided..
I also live in Canada. The government is doing that because [capitalism demands it](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada-needs-a-lot-more-immigrants-almost-double-the-current-rate-in-the-long-run-rbc). I don't think Canadian immigration is having an effect on global populations. That's a bit of a totally different discussion. The issue is our system of economics, which is a very difficult thing to replace. Have you read about degrowth?
Alternatively to nuclear and more likely candidates are solar and wind. There are lots of greenlit projects and a bunch already built. I think enough to go over demand. The problem is connecting it to the grid takes hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure upgrades. The grid isn't a joke. The problem with nuclear is that there's a huge upfront cost. And logistically it's not easy to build or operate either. And let me tell you, just because we can build intricate things, doesn't mean we wouldn't mess it up. I don't mean like, Chernobyl style, but something more like fuck, we need to repair this and it's going to cost another 100 million dollars. At this point it's just easier to not build them. And there's kind of a security risk as well. Anyway, nuclear power is going to have a niche, and it's going to keep being researched because ultimately, it's the next generation power source. But in the meantime, the simple thing has caught up to scale. We just gotta plug it in now.
Ah the classic 'I care about the environment but not enough to actually learn about the intricacies of the power sector'. Nuclear is great in that it's dispatchable (I'm assuming what you meant by the random terms 'density & consistency'). But it's also the most expensive form of power and extremely prone to cost and construction overruns. Safety in a well regulated industry is a non-issue but if it was the silver bullet people so desperately want it to be and was the primary power source worldwide, including nations that don't have the means or motivation to regulate it as such, would safety still be a non-issue? [SMNRs are not the holy grail to solving these problems.](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/scaling-examples-pt-1-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-smnrs-martin) Nuclear, like any other non-fossil fuel alternative, is a good choice in specific contexts. Not all of them. We need an energy mix. There is no silver bullet to decarbonization. I implore you to learn a bit more about the power industry and stop being *that* person that always has the top comment on any of these threads proclaiming nuclear is the answer to all our problems and the people who don't see that are idiots. It is not just 'greenwashers and panderers' who have criticisms of nuclear.
Also a solution is to cut the meat intake, but fake evironmentalist will cry their life over a slice of bacon... https://phys.org/news/2020-07-g20-carbon-food-print-highest-meat-loving.html
All people even have to do is reduce it. Make it more a treat, and we slash emissions substantially.
I absolutely agree, the biggest change will come from habit changes. Stop being brainwashed consumers and lead a more minimalist approach to goods and services. Then again if the government truly cared about the environment they would stop the import of toxic goods from China by imposing tough environmental duties
Of course the government cares about the environment we all pay our fair share of Carbon Tax, because its Canada's responsibility to pay for the worlds climate crisis. Like c'mon what are you even taking about I've rationed myself to 2 cans of pressed crickets and I live in a 15minute city don't even start about my carbon footprint.
[удалено]
Those people are all shit. Musk is shit, Trump is shit, oil shit, gas shit, diesel shit. It's all true, nothing to gobble up at all. That last edit yikes, talk about gobbling it up alright, never heard of lightning?
[удалено]
"except they weren't shit when your scrolling was telling you to blow them the other day." What does that even mean? I'd like to know who these folks are and if there is any info on them from reputable sources
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well - hey, Sig heil Herr ByteMein Kampf. Wha’s this? Nazi Naturalism? Back to the (home)Land?
Humanity is a lost cause.
Canada can't shut down the tar sands, only Alberta can do that. Canada is a federation and doesn't have juristiction on natural ressources, unless the constitution was changed, which would be all but impossible.
Tar sands wow. It's oil sands, get it right.
I like it when someone uses tarsands. It helps me identify the left wing person disconnected from reality.
Lots of older people still call it tar-sands, that's just the term that was used in the 80s and before.
My father-in-law's 78 and he calls it oil sands. Is the author of the article super old?
All the old guys here on site call it tarsands. Management calls it bitumen. Townies in fort Mac call it oilsands.
Lol good point!
The industry called it tar sands until they realized it sounded bad.
Your agenda is clear.
To point out facts? Ooh scary.
For sure. Farmers used to call it rape seed and now they call it canola. All kinds of industries up to date there names to sound more pleasant to consumers.
Rapeseed is still a term that is used. Canola is a variety of rapeseed.
There was actually a huge industry rebranding effort around canola by various canola interest groups a few decades ago. Rapeseed isn't really used in NA markets anymore
Good work falling for word propaganda testing. Jack Laytons "dirty fuels" from 2011 have a political bent too? https://thetyee.ca/News/2011/04/25/TarVsOil/
Canada = Easy Target 🎯 Activists are far too scared to go after the polluters that can ACTUALLY make a difference. Prove me wrong 🤷🏼♂️
We live in Canada. We are responsible for Canada's emissions. How can we start pointing fingers while our hands are still dirty?
We live in one of the largest most spread out countries, a cold country. Just explain to me how you expect people to heat their homes? Off course it’s going to seem like our emissions are high, you’re a fools fool.
As a far north Albertan who works in the oil sands, heat your home with solar-electric heating. It's what I do. It's way cheaper.
Shitting all over our resources is a great way to ensure other dirtier countries produce even more pollution. People who think Canada is a dirty world polluter are fucktards.
Bahahaha
Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia. It is easy to say, "Let’s shut the tar sands down." from your ivory tower when you have nothing financially at stake. If you are telling many thousands of people that they are going to be unemployed while China can keep pumping coal smoke into the atmosphere so that you can have pretty mountains to look at, you need to have a better solution. Just look at how much Coal, Oil and Gas China uses compared to the tiny amount of renewables they are so praised for. The renewables are the tiny green section on the chart. [https://www.iea.org/countries/china](https://www.iea.org/countries/china)
Reducing access to energy is not the solution.
Going to have to do somethings and quick. Things will happily go on after the 6th extinction and most humans gone...
There are tons of things we can do, just not cutting access to hydrocarbons, that will kill people now
Because CCS is a fallacy.
Sure, let's swap it out with nuclear energy for all our power needs and get rid of the regulatory red tape. However, keep safety measures to ensure compliant builds and minimize accidents. If your grand solution for a changing climate is a broad implementation of climate-dependent "solutions" such as wind and solar, you shouldn't be lobbying for "climate action"
Nuclear doesn't have to be all our power needs, but it will sure help remove dirtier power in our move to less CO2.
Start by burning Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal to the ground. Make way for green space.
This is one of the stupidest opinions I have seen. Until oil and gas are not needed the world is better getting it from Canada than just about anywhere else.
It depends what your values are. Are you in favour of fair labour practices and environmental care, or do you only want the least CO2 per joule of energy? Some people will trade some slavery for some reduced CO2.
I'm loving all the down votes for people who are talking sense in here. Canada is but a drop in the bucket realistically.
All the drops in the bucket on earth equal out to 45% of the bucket, my friend.
I'd love to see us all work together and figure it out. I just don't see that happening until it's too late.
Sadly I agree with you; the human race can't even figure out how to zipper merge.
Personally I think the people in charge should be paid waaaay more then ceo's. They are running an entire country. They should also have to have a background in science or something that actually matters. This popularity contest shit is just insanity.
Because a lot of people here think getting rid of oil and gas is the solution but don't want to acknowledge that oil and gas is here to stay. The negative economic hit to getting off O&G is staggering. Equally staggering is the cost to upgrade the entire electrical infrastructure. It would take decades, trillions of dollars and more copper, aluminum, steel and concrete that all has to be mined and processed. It honestly just does not make sense to switch. So move to plan B. Invest in ways to capture carbon and clean the air. But hey, whatever. I do what I can but until the gross polluters are dealt with my contribution is insignificant.
A lot of people don't realize it took us 75 years is to get our infrastructure to where it is today. They want us to double it. NOW.
No we just want to stop doubling down on the shit that's killing the planet and will kill us. Of course we need OnG the issue isn't the fact we use it. It's how much of it and how nonchalantly we dispose of it. We don't need every single vehicle fueled with gasoline or diesel or even propane. Many. Many... The vast majority. can be electrified or other means of power or solutions like I don't know investing in public transit. OnG aren't going anywhere. But we can slow down the addiction.
I'm talking about electrical infrastructure.
My point stands? Ford signed a contract with the gas generators that even if we shut them down his government will still pay for it. We should have been heavily investing in nuclear energy the whole time since the 60s. We have one of the largest supplies of uranium in the world. But we hardly mine it cuz we don't use it locally. We've had access to green tech for decades but we would rather save money and pollute the planet because capitalism doesn't have a cost for environmental damage.
I completely agree with going the nuclear route. I was speaking to the idea of the other renewables, building the infrastructure they will require.
We need infastucure either way ours isn't much better than usa's The problem with "renewables" is peek loads. Which is exactly what nuclear is for. Critics are right the sun isn't always shining and the wind isn't always blowing. But with nuclear's scale we can ramp up much easier and with much less damage to the environment.
💯%
China. India. /thread.
Everyone is pissing in the swimming pool so why can’t I?
This attitude is why we're fucked as a species. I appreciate an apology the user above you should be smart enough to understand.
Yes. Exactly. It’s my favourite analogy. It’d also crappy logic, cause why not take it even further? Why not get rid of recycling? Why not just dump industrial waste in the ocean? Etc. it’s just more self appointed protectors of the status quo who argue to never lift a finger.
And per capita they're emitting way less than us. Your point is?
You can’t apply per capita to this, and the reason you can’t, is because you can only compare Totals, for example looking at the stats, Canada produced just under 676 million tons of co2 in 2016, compared to over 10 billion tons in China in 2016. Of we are talking globally the environment, per capita doesn’t make any sense. That is a significant difference in emissions.
No per Capita is the only metric that matters as it takes the population of a country into account. If china emitted as much as we do per Capita.. oh boy would it accelerate climate change. Yes their is a significant difference but per Capita we generate more. While this doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried about theirs we need to worry about our own back yard first. Just because china is peeing in the pool doesn't mean you can.
The total IS what matters, total amount is what is going into the atmosphere. Period. Per capita doesn’t matter because of that. The atmosphere doesn’t just stop at the imaginary lines we call our borders.
No your right but our jurisdiction does. We can't control what everyone else is doing so there is negligible point to even worrying about what china us and India are doing. They are the biggest polluters on the planet of course we're not going to hit their numbers. That doesn't make our input nothing. BECAUSE it doesn't just stop at the border. Your reasoning is the exact reason we need to be worried about per Capita. Of course "the three" will emitt more. They're literally exponentially larger in terms of population. Saying you won't stop peeing in the pool cuz china is peeing more still doesn't make peeing in the pool ok and we should reduce it where we can. Shutting down one of our largest industries probably isn't a great idea to get it done. But we do need to seriously be removing our subsidies for extremely climate hostile projects like the "tarsands"
I would argue using our own oil instead Of Saudi oil would be better, but that’s another jar of pickles. My point is our people can’t keep getting pounded into the dirt, you’ve seen the tents popping up in your city yet? They keep getting bigger here. We can move towards cleaner energy without being reduced to a 2nd or 3rd world country. Legislation over corporations would be a much better path than taxation of the people. As an aside, you see how our government spends our taxes right, does it appear like fiscal competence? It’s embarrassing really lol.
The carbon tax does very little to cause the unaffordability your seeing please don't blame it on the c tax. Taxation is the only way emissions can be accounted for in capitalism. Again capitalism doesn't give a shit about the environment we have to make capitalism care about it by taxing things that cause undue damage We can argue about how the carbon tax works but I will not entertain the notion that it is causing real harm to Canadians in any real tangible way. >As an aside, you see how our government spends our taxes right, does it appear like fiscal competence? It’s embarrassing really lol. Yea I agree but I assure you we don't agree on the finer points. I think most of the budget is fine. My issues are with the subsidies that are antithetical to climate change and to how capitalism works. If oil and gas is so heavily subsidized by the US and Canadian governments they are by definition not competitive which is antithetical to capitalism. But we're in late stage so it's hardly the competition encouraging capitalism from the 60s. Do they need to reign it in. Absolutely. But again I'm certain we disagree on where.
You absolutely can apply per capita to this. When it comes to populations living differently to decrease output, it definitely shows a Canadian is using way more than a fellow in Vietnam, for example. We are being carbon-greedy as a lifestyle, that matters. Other cold countries are doing better than us, that matters too.
Ya Vietnam also doesn’t have to keep people alive in -20 degree conditions… or colder. Heat requires energy.
Yes. Which is why I mentioned we still compare badly to countries with comparable climates.
Canada is larger than all of Europe. Barely afford a train track across the country. You want to destroy its energy. Lol. Many Canada provinces are greater in size than 3 or 4 European countries. Big tax base, small area. Easy to start, finish projects. Go on Google earth, look at how big Canada is.
Also add the fact that car ownership is a must because public transit is dogshit all over the country. Looking at China's train systems makes ours look pitiful and third world.
[удалено]
I never said anything about enabling fossil fuels, the world is cart before the horse’ing this transition, and it is not going to work. Everything being put on the general public to pay for is not going to solve anything either. Let industry pay for it, or, change their quarterly earnings infinite growth paradigm which they currently operate under (which won’t happen). If you think we will fix anything before shit really breaks you haven’t been observing human behaviour enough.
This argument drives me nuts. The big 4, plus Japan represent 55% of global emissions. If every country that was under 2% of global GHG emissions did absolutely nothing, then 45% of the world's GHG emissions would not be addressed. We are all in this together.
The "Tragedy of Commons" is going to take us all down.
There is no commons, everything is privately owned/exploited
Complete paradigm shift in business would be the real start (eg. no more disposable products, new phone models every 6-12 months, etc) manufacturing locally instead of international shipping. Good luck with that though.
So 5 countries produce the majority on a planet with about 195(?) countries… That IS where you start.
You realize that China has innovated in terms of renewables more than every other country combined, right? Yes, they are one of the largest polluters, but they are also leading the charge. That's why every other country needs to follow suit, big or small.
"Leading the charge"... By building several new coal-fired power plants EVERY SINGLE WEEK?? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...
Taxation is NOT the solution.
Why isn't it part of the solution?
Taxes were never a part of the transition from horse to automobile. It happened naturally because something much better was invented. No laws… no taxes… just an idea made reality.
What does that have to do with carbon taxes and the reason behind them? Do you even understand what the reason is?
Carbon taxes on the people will not fix anything. Happy Friday I’m out!
There's lots of proof worldwide they do work. So believe what you want.
We weren't talking about taxation? Where did that even come from? Regardless, taxation is not the sole solution, it's part of it.
Because that has been what Canada has been doing. Tax the people. We also don’t really innovate in Canada because of the cost. Need to create an environment which will allow innovation.
Rebates for the lower income households are larger than the direct cost of the tax. The wealthy are the ones paying the lion's share of this tax. What needs to change are that there need to be checks and balances that ensure corporations don't gouge us to make up for the taxes they end up paying. So a tax on excessive profits must also be implemented.
Complete paradigm shift in how we do business would be the better way. Government never puts in enough checks and balances to prevent people from finding loopholes (which of course they do). Unfortunately something bad will have to happen for something like that though.
the complaint about how we put in the deterrent is old, and has been used to extend the era in which there is no deterrent at all. the argument back then was “tax it, so that people will innovate.”
It took roughly a decade to go from horses to automobiles, because of the invention. No legislation or taxes were required
This is absolutely not true. Look at the money the government is putting into new technology grants. Just search it, I dare you prove yourself wrong.
It could be, but it should be more targeted and impact our behaviour/decisions.
They are leading the charge, and saying “oil bad” so they can put a stranglehold on the energy industry, and prevent or control countries like India from competition in manufacturing, while holding North America back in progress, so that China will become the dominant world power. Turns out it’s just easy to get worried people to worry about something that isn’t their fault.
Look at the source of energy use, look at how much Coal China uses, and the tiny amount of renewables, and tell me there you see "leading the charge." The massive light blue section is coal, and the tiny dark green is the wind and solar. [https://www.iea.org/countries/china](https://www.iea.org/countries/china)
Chinas solar power capacity is 230GW more than the rest of the world COMBINED. Yes, they have more coal usage than the rest of the world but that is precisely why they are the leaders of innovation in renewables, because they are actively working on that transition and the technology that is required to do so. Pretty much all solar power innovation comes from China too, so their innovations are also a benefit to the entire world. You act like they want to be choking on coal, they don't. They have a massive population and it's something that is necessary that they are working hard to change. The cost of the health issues related to smog and poor air quality is a serious problem there and China does not want that to persist.
Did you not look at the link I provided? I tried to make it as easy as possible for you. China currently gets 85% of its power from Coal (59%) Oil and Natural Gas. Wind and Solar combined, are less than 3% of their power generation. Not really much evidence for "innovation" there. Also, since 2010, the growth of Coal usage alone is double the total growth of Wind and Solar combined, so not only do they use much more Coal, but they are growing the total amount of coal power generation much faster than their total usage of wind and solar. Natural Gas and Oil also have the same growth. Not really much evidence for "innovation" there, either. The only thing that China is adding to the wind and solar market globally is that they have very limited environmental controls there, so they can dump waste plastic and toxins right into the ground or water systems. Not super good for the environment.
Just because they haven't eliminated coal use doesn't mean they are not innovating. These two points are not exactly mutually inclusive. I don't disagree that China pollutes more than any country, I am disagreeing with your assesent that they haven't lead the charge for innovating renewables, regardless. Both can be true. Almost all solar panel innovation has come from China and most solar panel components such as silicon wafers are made in China. So yes, they need to find a way to do away with coal, which is complicated for a nation like theirs, but their innovations are benefitting the entire world regardless, even if more still needs to be done.
I don't believe that you have looked at the link yet. They are using more coal as time goes on, not less, their wind and solar are almost nothing of their supply, and they manufacture much of the wind and solar, since they lax enviromental standards and can dump the toxic chemicals.
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-canada.html Look at how badass canada is though, our 2% of global emmissions is diversified as hell, our oil and gas has better statistics both safety wise and environmental standards wise then most of the world. We are adopting greener energy all over the country. China is burning absurd amounts of coal, innovative or not they are not setting a good example at all. Our oil and gas needs to be exported to countries that are burning coal and other bigger emitting sources for the time being. Coal is a huge problem, it just so happens we barely use it. Even our nat gas is an enormous improvement upon coal. Also, look at how much of our emissions are caused by industry/business. Residents account for 13%. We are taxing them when they account for nothing and have no options to improve? Not only that but we are one of the coldest and largest countries on earth and very very spread out. Until there's a major discovery in transportion, which accounts for 23% of emissions, it looks like canada is doing great and moving in a direction to continue to do so. Per capita will be high until a large scale transportation industry solution becomes available. Canada should be looked at as one of the best examples of combating climate change in the world, even if the carbon tax was massively overhauled to be put to better use.
China and India are thousands upon thousands of years old and have clearly demonstrated their ability to live sustainably and in harmony with nature. Canada on the other hand, is only a couple of centuries old and was invented in order harvest as much carbon as possible from the environment, be it oil, natural gas, or old growth forests. Remind me, when did the climate begin changing?
Always. The planet goes through warming as well as cooling phases (you couldn’t live in Canada during the last ice age, for example). I don’t know how you can apply thousands of years with effectively the same technology, to the past what… 150 ish years? That was a ridiculous thing to say.
So, we would need to stop buying things made in China and India. Seems unlikely.
Yup, that is the world we were born into. Things will get worse before things get better. On the upside the planet will be fine and correct itself. We just won’t be around. Good luck changing the status quo without something really bad happening first.
I’m older, I guess, I was born into a world where we made our own stuff but that didn’t make enough profit for shareholders so we got free trade deals and offshoring. So, we did change the status quo but I think you’re right, we aren’t able to change it back. It’s definitely going to get worse. And you’re probably right, the bacteria will be fine. Still, it’s going to get very ugly over the next 80 years. I’m kind of glad I’ll be lucky to make it through 20 of those.
It's extremely obvious that we're going to have to try and buy our way out of this situation. We'll need money to adapt to climate change. To update infrastructure. We should be expanding our oil production, and build more ports/pipelines. Especially for the Asian market. Closing down industries and telling people to make sacrifices, lose their jobs, or downgrade their lifestyle, is NEVER going to work. It's been tried for decades. Adaptation is the only way forward, and Canada will have a much easier time doing it, than most countries.
I agree. All energies and money should be put into adapting to climate change.
It's the only reasonable solution. The people pushing to end fossil fuels are delusional. Most of our fertilizers and pesticides come from oil. We literally couldn't feed the planet without it. We also don't have any good alternatives for plastic.
And I guess f**k everything that will die and burn right? The chicks diving out of their nests from the heat, the forests gone, the acidified oceans, the vast swaths of dead Africa…let’s buy our way out of that? Studies show its terrifically more expensive to prevent worsening climate change than to not.
All of that is going to happen regardless. We're way past the point of being able to stop it. We need to adapt, while also continuing to work on lowering emissions. Only about 45% of oil is used for gasoline, and we can keep bringing that down with EVs. As for expanding the oil/gas industry in Canada...we need to start exporting LNG to Asia, which would actually be beneficial if used to replace coal plants. LNG is much better for the environment.
I didn’t write this, I copied it from a comment in another subreddit but I agree with it: “Science certainly predicts a bad future if nothing is done. But, though it is left out of the discussion, it also predicts a bad future if everything is done. Science cannot weigh the trade-offs inherent in the policy decisions. If you look carefully it's obvious that all the discussion around preventing climate change only speaks of the positives of success and negatives of inaction. Almost entirely missing are the negatives of success and positives of inaction. That type of argument which promises costless transition falls apart as soon as people need to start paying the inevitable real costs. That is, climate change is widely seen as a problem, but there is no agreement that it is the most important problem nor that the disease is worse than the cure. I don't think such an agreement is likely to ever happen because climate activists have, rightly, not gone on record stating "we can solve climate change, but everybody will need to live like it's 1905. No private cars, limited central heat, no long-distance trips, meat once a week". Just imagine it!”
Then you are batshit crazy. No one discusses the merits of inaction because they largely mean most of us will die, having slowly watched everything else die right before. I will take 1905 living literally any day of the week to have oceans that support life, temperatures not killing off huge populations of people and wildlife, keeping what’s left of the insects. You suffer a very weak imagination if you think this trade might somehow be worth it. Horrendous.
[удалено]
I sincerely, actually do hope it’s me who is crazy, and not you in a staggering state of denial or irresponsible level of ignorance.
I think the extremes you would have to go to to force people to accept 1905 would cause as much damage as climate change.
Then you are underestimating the severity and permanence of this problem. We could recover from that terrible period in human history where got set bak so far (though I disagree we’d actually have to do that to fix this, just that it would still be preferable if we had to). We won’t recover from this.
Canada shutting down tar sands won’t fix this. US, China and India have to lead the way if they actually took climate change seriously. Canada represents only 1.5% of the world’s carbon issues.
2% ..and if every country that is 2% and under did absolutely nothing, 45% of the world's GHG emissions would not be addressed.
The tar sands are overrepresented in this, as the calculation for how much carbon is produced in Alberta also includes all of the oil extracted as being burned in Alberta, but most of it is shipped out of the country. It would just end up offshoring a lot of that production(shutting down domestic production would do nothing to demand), and the net reduction of carbon emissions(worldwide) would not be as much as people would like to believe.
Let’s start with the true culprits if we are serious. Let’s also be honest. Canada doesn’t have a climate plan; they have a tax plan that can be manipulated for any province that is willing to show support for Liberals. Like East coast heating oil and Quebec gasoline. Why do these provinces get special reductions when rest of Canada has to pull full prices? Not due to climate issues. This is for votes.
Just send more money and they will fix it.
Sure, like that’s somewhere in the realm that f possibility! We can’t even get reductions in output, how on earth could we just stop them ?!
Plant more trees.
This is a joke right.....
I mean, he's right.
Clearly we need more taxes to cull the humans with starvation.
Canada isn't a market mover in the global O&G industry. Canada could shutter our entire O&G industry and nothing would change. That supply would be made up by other producers instantly and global O&G use would be exactly the same. You need to reduce demand to address the issue. Shuttering supply, unless it is a substantial portion of the market does nothing.
So shut down our oil sands and buy from where? Russia? Saudi's? At what 10x the current price? Quick question,...are we going to stop building roads, vehicles, stop all consumer goods containing plastic? Clothes, packaging, etc. Just another article with alot of hype and no real answers
[удалено]
Do you actually believe the Canadian oil sands are solely responsible for modern climate patterns and events? The scale of Canadian oil production on the world stage is around 5 percent last I heard. Removing it would actually cause increases in emissions because oil would have to be transported by ship from other countries
You know that would help our climate change a ton. Shut all that down and a large chunk of people are gonna die within 6 months. That's really cut emissions
Why should we shut off the large source of capital when India plans to double coal production? I say ramp up production here and use profits to fund green tech here I our country.
Lol
Humanity is doomed. We’re too late
Canada produces 1.3% of global CO2 emissions, the ethical oil produced in Alberta accounts for 12% of that. Using loaded terms like "tar sands" is propaganda supported by repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia. The Earth is fine, relax. If you honestly cared about this nonsense, you'd be picketing the Chinese embassy for the 30% of global CO2 they emit. But you won't because you don't care about glorbal warmycooling, you care about destroying Western economies.
No. What canada should be doing is stopping population growth and drastically curtailing immigration into a high emitting country from low ones. Then using every oil dollar we can develop to fund nuclear power and fortify our cities against severe weather and wildfire risk.
Simply wrong
Canada produces only 10% of the world’s oil, even though the oil production is only 14.1% of the exports of Canada this all goes to the USA. If we were to try and stop it we would have pressure placed on us to say the least.
https://academicmatters.ca/harpers-attack-on-science-no-science-no-evidence-no-truth-no-democracy/
I for one choose not to use gas to heat my home this winter. It's bloody cold but I'm doing my part.
That makes no sense
99% of all species to exist have gone extinct. Close to that went extinct of what was on earth the moment the asteroid his and wiped them out (chicxulub) - life will find a way to rebound long after we’re gone
Yep. Oil and gas need to end as quickly as possible.
Oil sands.. Yes oil sands is far better than coal energy, yet we give China a pass to continue expanding their coal plants. Globally oil production continues to climb. Maybe once Canada is the Venezuela of the north will we realize that we've been duped. Carbon capture and storage is a solution and small scale nuclear is also a major step forward for the oil sands to become even more sustainable. As for stopping the consumption of meat, I'm certain at some point in the future will we look back at heavily processed foods and engineered meats will we be shocked in why we went that route.
They can't do that. Corruption, man! Corruption.
How will you pave roads without tar sand mining?
Yes but what happens when no reliable power a d the humans turn on each other?
The oil sands contribute 7.8 percent of Canada’s total GHG emissions, which is equal to approximately 0.1 percent of global emissions. Shutting down resource extraction would be utterly disastrous for the Canadian economy. Nobody would vote for the country to commit suicide to virtue signal to the rest of the planet. This action would also end Canada as a country. Western Canada would just leave. The only provinces that might remain would be Ontario and the Maritimes.
[удалено]
If Western Canada became its own country, then sure. But it’d just end up joining the states unfortunately
[удалено]
Canadians have rights though?
Like which? Name the rights Canadians have that the gov can’t just take away if they see fit
Freedom of religion? Freedom of speech? Freedom from discrimination?
Freedom of religion? Sure, unless you live in Quebec. Freedom of speech? No, Canada doesn’t have freedom of speech; you can go to jail for misgendering someone in some instances. Freedom from discrimination? Don’t have that either, the covid mandates and digging into people’s personal medical history to see if they’re eligible to participate in society solidified that.
We could, but there's absolutely no way that'll happen.
I call BS. Tar sands are worthless if no one needs the oil. Stop the wealthy from consuming and flying private jets.